The case of figure REF (a) shows that the so-called jump-down frequency is somewhere in between \(\Omega \in \left[0.675,0.685\right]\) . The damping value produced by (REF ) appears to be too small to match the experimental jump-down frequency, hence we tentatively added a pre factor in order to fit the measurements. It turns out that a pre factor of 1.35 is sufficient to provide a fairly good prediction of the jump-down frequency. We note that prediction (REF ) does not involve any dissipation mechanism associated with the contact line, i.e. contact line hysteresis [1]}, [2]}, [3]}, [4]}, [5]}, [6]}, [7]}, [8]} or possible surface contamination [9]}, [10]}. Indeed, depending on the configuration, contact line dynamics may rule the overall dissipation, with a measured damping coefficient up to 10-20 times larger [11]}, [4]}, [6]} than that predicted by (REF ). Comparison of the theoretical damping coefficient value with that measured in moving contact line experiments, due to unavoidable sources of uncertainty in the meniscus dynamics, have always been mostly qualitative, rather than quantitative, requiring often the use of fitting parameters. For instance, in their predictive theory for single-mode Faraday experiments, [9]} used an effective fluid viscosity 3 times larger than the actual one. Recently, [15]} have measured the damping coefficient of the first anti-symmetric sloshing mode in a quasi-two-dimensional rectangular container, which was seen to be approximately 1.5 larger than that predicted by the theory [16]}. The need for a pre factor of 1.35 in figure REF (a), which approximately corresponds to a fictitious fluid with a dynamic viscosity 1.8 time larger, is therefore not surprising when the damping is computed via (REF ) and contact line dissipation is neglected.
